Case 3301169/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Basra v GMS Technology Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301169/2021
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Basra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Basra, succeeded on two contract-related claims against GMS Technology Limited. The tribunal found that on 1 October 2020 he was paid £1,000 when he was entitled to £1,325 for the previous month, and it awarded £325 in respect of unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal also found that after the claimant was summarily dismissed, the respondent had promised to give him one week’s pay. The reasons describe this as more properly pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal awarded £305 as damages for breach of contract.
The total sum due to the claimant was £630. The judgment does not record any other remedy, statutory uplift, interest, or separate findings beyond those two monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held there was a shortfall in pay for the month ending 1 October 2020, when the claimant was paid £1,000 but was entitled to £1,325. | Upheld | — | £325 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded damages for the respondent's failure to pay the one week's pay it had promised after summarily dismissing the claimant, described in the reasons as more properly pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £305 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £630
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.